I won't go around saying I am a "Dutch level 6," and you won't go around saying you are "a 5.0."

'Cause it isn't true.

Click to expand...

Ok, I am going to ask the big one. Why not?

Are you suggesting that the ITF are somehow wrong or incapable of working out the relative ratings around the world? This is not about whether or not some ALTA League only "4.0" is a USTA 4.0 or not (obviously they aren't) but whether an international player with a verified ITN computer rating (4 in my case, although it used to be 3, ahh, old age..) can be directly and accurately compared to a computer rated USTA player. Which they can.

The ITF would probably like the whole world (as opposed to almost all of it) to switch to ITN ratings, but in the case of the USA that is about as likely as y'all going metric..

But that doesn't mean 2.5 cm isn't still an inch, and you are still a Dutch level 6!!!!

If you think that im going to go out to specifically make a video to prove all of you wrong, you really think too much of yourselves and how much I value your opinions. I'm having way too much fun here to be worried about what you guys think.

I love how the arguments become more and more withdrawn the more I post.

I also like the increased number of "dislikes" on my videos ever since I first posted them here. Lotta haters and disbelievers on this forum.

And to the person who said "lols, even if you played a 5.0, he wouldnt use his real serve on you!" he did and that was the first time ive ever been served at like that. I played with a 4.0 girl and we lost 7-5 with him serving full speed at me. He served a little easier on my partner.

I suppose, but it has a peculiar self-importance sound to it even more so than if I actually was USTA rated. And I don't think I've ever encountered an offense taken or further questioning about the USTA. The way I typically frame the answer is "I play in a 3.5 singles league." Absolutely true.

I suppose, but it has a peculiar self-importance sound to it even more so than if I actually was USTA rated. And I don't think I've ever encountered an offense taken or further questioning about the USTA. The way I typically frame the answer is "I play in a 3.5 singles league." Absolutely true.

If you think that im going to go out to specifically make a video to prove all of you wrong, you really think too much of yourselves and how much I value your opinions. I'm having way too much fun here to be worried about what you guys think.

Click to expand...

Well, it does seem that you're spending a lot of time posting in this thread defending your assertions regarding your serve without providing any actual evidence of your serve. Why not just post some videos of your serve?

And to the person who said "lols, even if you played a 5.0, he wouldnt use his real serve on you!" he did and that was the first time ive ever been served at like that.

Click to expand...

Not in the 3.0 vs 5.0 point play video. He was serving at much lower than his capability ... supposedly. In fact, I'll go out on a limb here and say that I don't even like that guy's serving motion. There was one serve where he seemed to rip it, but the rest were half ***. Not at all impressive or even difficult for somebody even at my level to return. Play, and video record, you playing that guy in match conditions, where you're both putting out full effort. Post some videos of you serving. I love videos. Of anybody and everybody.

My first serve probably tops out at 90mph, but many times it is probably in the 80s. Nevertheless it can still ace people 4.0 or lower occasionally (even a 4.5 on a rare occasion). Even though it is the weakest part of my game, I usually have a high first serve percentage and I place it well, so it does the job mostly, it is just not dominating. 90mph is still a fast serve, I think most people grossly overestimate the speed of their serves/hits if they don't have an accurate and properly used radar gun.

A 110 mph serve that you get in 20% of the time is effectively useless, it will lose matches for you, and will hinder your progress on your serve if you keep trying it. You have to build up to that sort of serve.

Actually, that's not as bad as I thought it would be. Nice knee bend; back is too stiff though and the body rotation timing is off. Not a 110 mph serve, but like I said, better than I was expecting. Good for the 3.5 level and probably higher also (depending on control - could not see where the serves were landing).

Even though it is the weakest part of my game, I usually have a high first serve percentage and I place it well, so it does the job mostly, it is just not dominating.

Click to expand...

First serve for me is just a shot to get me into the net. It doesn't have to be extremely fast. Just well placed. Witness, for example, the success of Ken Rosewall ... a world top ten dominant player for more than 20 years ... with a comparatively slow first, and second, serve.

I think most people grossly overestimate the speed of their serves/hits if they don't have an accurate and properly used radar gun.

Click to expand...

Agree. I would have thought that my practice serves were going about 80 + mph, until I actually calculated the speed via time stamps in videos and estimated distances and discovered that they were probably only about 75 mph or maybe less. Fairly large margin of error when doing it that way.

A 110 mph serve that you get in 20% of the time is effectively useless, it will lose matches for you, and will hinder your progress on your serve if you keep trying it. You have to build up to that sort of serve.

Click to expand...

I agree. But the thing is, if you can hit serves at 110 mph with 20% going in, then you can potentially hit those same serves with, say, 60% or 70% going in. Personally, I don't think I could even possibly hit a serve close to 90 mph with my current old man serving motion. But, as I get more fit, and practice, there is, I have to think, hope.

Actually, that's not as bad as I thought it would be. Nice knee bend; back is too stiff though and the body rotation timing is off. Not a 110 mph serve, but like I said, better than I was expecting. Good for the 3.5 level and probably higher also (depending on control - could not see where the serves were landing).

Click to expand...

See, the kid has potential. Eh? I like his energy, movement, athleticism, and apparent willingness to take instruction.

I agree. But the thing is, if you can hit serves at 110 mph with 20% going in, then you can potentially hit those same serves with, say, 60% or 70% going in. Personally, I don't think I could even possibly hit a serve close to 90 mph with my current old man serving motion. But, as I get more fit, and practice, there is, I have to think, hope.

Click to expand...

This is exactly it Tom. When I first started taking tennis seriously a few years ago one of the guys actually laughed at when I said "I want to try to be a 5.0" and now that same guy doesnt say anything when he sees me play.

That serve motion in my video isnt at all like how my serve motion is now and I only brought it up to show that im very capable of squaring that face up and getting extra pace if I need to.

In time, my flat serve will be consistent enough to be used as a legitimate first serve. Right now its too unreliable, so I dont use it. As far as "oh, im so good that I dont have to use it" that's really only half of it. People at this level can be seriously hurt if I play "my maximum" because they are not ready to be on the receiving end of a big serve, overhead, or return. I'm a pretty intense player and I want to win, but since this is rec level, im not going to bust someones ear drum, give them an eye abrasion, or blow out a nuttsack just to win a point. I will always try to avoid hitting the net player at this level, because this isnt 4.0. 4.0+ I just hit wherever I want.

The "Ivo Karlovic" serve did in fact go in, but it was very close to the "T". I remember it, because this video was from our very first lesson and I gave the flat serve a chance for fun.

As far as posting a video to prove everyone wrong, that's not going to happen. I guarantee you that there will be other videos up there of me soon, but because that channel is there just to gauge my improvement and not to prove anything to TT posters, if you really want to see me play, I wouldnt hold my breath.

This is exactly it Tom. When I first started taking tennis seriously a few years ago one of the guys actually laughed at when I said "I want to try to be a 5.0" and now that same guy doesnt say anything when he sees me play.

That serve motion in my video isnt at all like how my serve motion is now and I only brought it up to show that im very capable of squaring that face up and getting extra pace if I need to.

In time, my flat serve will be consistent enough to be used as a legitimate first serve. Right now its too unreliable, so I dont use it. As far as "oh, im so good that I dont have to use it" that's really only half of it. People at this level can be seriously hurt if I play "my maximum" because they are not ready to be on the receiving end of a big serve, overhead, or return. I'm a pretty intense player and I want to win, but since this is rec level, im not going to bust someones ear drum, give them an eye abrasion, or blow out a nuttsack just to win a point. I will always try to avoid hitting the net player at this level, because this isnt 4.0. 4.0+ I just hit wherever I want.

The "Ivo Karlovic" serve did in fact go in, but it was very close to the "T". I remember it, because this video was from our very first lesson and I gave the flat serve a chance for fun.

As far as posting a video to prove everyone wrong, that's not going to happen. I guarantee you that there will be other videos up there of me soon, but because that channel is there just to gauge my improvement and not to prove anything to TT posters, if you really want to see me play, I wouldnt hold my breath.

Click to expand...

It's not about proving anything, at least not for me. It's about tennis videos. I love tennis videos. And now that we have this ... connection, via this forum, then your videos will be that much more interesting.

I think you have great potential and am hoping you achieve your goals. Though I think you might have set them too low. I'm fairly confident that you could be a solid 4.5 player within a couple of years. I think it's just a matter of how important it is to you to make the necessary hours of quality practice on the court a priority.

anywya, they go the other way, I think, he would be a Dutch level 7, but ONLY if he had a verifiable rating.

the flip side of this is where a USTA rated player moves overseas (it happens, really!) and wants to play in, say, Australia.

We can take his USTA rating and accurately grade him in to one our leagues, 'cos it works!

However, using your argument, the reverse would not be true, as only 'USTA computer ratings' apparently count for anything...

Click to expand...

cindy's argument appears to be that we should cease using ntrp as an easily-understood yardstick to facilitate communication and discussion, simply because she can't be arsed asking a follow-up question about how someone has arrived at their rating if that rating becomes important

See, the kid has potential. Eh? I like his energy, movement, athleticism, and apparent willingness to take instruction.

Click to expand...

I've been saying there is potential. Even seeing the serve motion, I still have no doubt he isn't hitting 110. I doubt he is even over 100 in the swings on that video. He has a knee bend that isn't transferring up to his arm...too vertical.

I've been saying there is potential. Even seeing the serve motion, I still have no doubt he isn't hitting 110. I doubt he is even over 100 in the swings on that video. He has a knee bend that isn't transferring up to his arm...too vertical.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think I said somewhere back in the thread that I don't believe he's hitting close to 110 mph ... from what I've seen so far. Still, great potential, imho. He's sort of knee-jerk reacted to the sarcastic put downs of his claims. Which is probably the way I would react. I think he could probably beat most of his detractors or skeptics. That's why I excluded him from my challenge to USTA 3.0Cs.

Whatever mechanical problems you see, I think he is intelligent enough and motivated enough to improve upon.

So, I'm issuing a new challenge. I expect that by 2015 NTRPolice will be a bona fide, solid 4.5C USTA player.

And to the person who said "lols, even if you played a 5.0, he wouldnt use his real serve on you!" he did and that was the first time ive ever been served at like that. I played with a 4.0 girl and we lost 7-5 with him serving full speed at me. He served a little easier on my partner.

Click to expand...

Just because he served easier to your partner does not mean that he was serving 110 to you.

In ALTA levels work differently where we can have wide range of players on our team- we have former D1 guys and 4.0 guys who practice together. The former D1 guys simply don't bring out their bombs when playing against 4.0 guys. They would probably just go to the bar early rather than facing a 3.5 guy. You may think that you got their biggest serve but in a pickup match I think that is exceedingly unlikely. Even then not all of our former D1 guys can still hit 110. I just don't think you realize what a massive serve 110 is.

Seems like the easiest thing to do would be to just ask your pro how hard he thinks you serve. I do not think you will like his answer.

cindy's argument appears to be that we should cease using ntrp as an easily-understood yardstick to facilitate communication and discussion, simply because she can't be arsed asking a follow-up question about how someone has arrived at their rating if that rating becomes important

this is an utterly bizarre thread, really

Click to expand...

I do agree with you Teflon, but I think that somebody, like Cindy, has to say something off the wall now and then otherwise there wouldn't be any actual discussions.

Cindy has asserted a certain idea of hers, and it's resulted in a wonderfully entertaining thread as far as I'm concerned. In response to Cindy's claims, there's been a certain concentration on my claims, then a certain, and more extensive, concentration on NTRPolice's claims, and who knows what might be next.

As far as "oh, im so good that I dont have to use it" that's really only half of it. People at this level can be seriously hurt if I play "my maximum" because they are not ready to be on the receiving end of a big serve, overhead, or return. I'm a pretty intense player and I want to win, but since this is rec level, im not going to bust someones ear drum, give them an eye abrasion, or blow out a nuttsack just to win a point. I will always try to avoid hitting the net player at this level, because this isnt 4.0. 4.0+ I just hit wherever I want.

Click to expand...

This statement is also something i think you will find amusing in a few years.

In the meantime, you had probably better register your overhead, serve and return with the local authorities as Deadly Weapons.

That's a pretty big swing, it could be 110 at times. Not many of us carry around radar guns in our bags. I remember a guy at my club, about 20 years ago, who bought one and was generous enough to clock anyone who wanted to.

The BEST SERVE is not necessarily the fastest. Fed and Pete don't have the fastest serves on the planet but win a lot of free points. At their level it's getting into their opponent's head, hitting all the spots (down the T, wide, into the body) and having all the spins, (slice, top, flat), keeping the receiver off-guard, guessing, leaning the wrong way.

If you're young, athletic, motivated you can improve quickly. A freshly hatched beginner can go from 3.0 to 4.0 in a year if they work hard--if they forget about blasting the ball out of the park and keep it in the lines-- they can win a lot with gorilla tennis. He could become a 4.5 in a few years IF he gets really good coaching on all aspects of the game, technique, strategy and tactics (and he doesn't discover girls).

Yes, I think I said somewhere back in the thread that I don't believe he's hitting close to 110 mph ... from what I've seen so far. Still, great potential, imho. He's sort of knee-jerk reacted to the sarcastic put downs of his claims. Which is probably the way I would react. I think he could probably beat most of his detractors or skeptics. That's why I excluded him from my challenge to USTA 3.0Cs.

Whatever mechanical problems you see, I think he is intelligent enough and motivated enough to improve upon.

So, I'm issuing a new challenge. I expect that by 2015 NTRPolice will be a bona fide, solid 4.5C USTA player.

Click to expand...

He certainly could end up a 4.5. I'll bet against 2015. That would mean 3 bumps up in 3 years. I havent seen someone accomplish that. I'd put the over-under on 2017...slightly ahead of his own prediction (by age 35 = 2019).

cindy's argument appears to be that we should cease using ntrp as an easily-understood yardstick to facilitate communication and discussion, simply because she can't be arsed asking a follow-up question about how someone has arrived at their rating if that rating becomes important

this is an utterly bizarre thread, really

Click to expand...

It's especially odd since Cindy has recently said that, though she's a 4.0, she plays mostly doubles and would have trouble beating a (female) 3.5 in singles. So apparently follow-up questions will be necessary no matter what...

It's especially odd since Cindy has recently said that, though she's a 4.0, she plays mostly doubles and would have trouble beating a (female) 3.5 in singles. So apparently follow-up questions will be necessary no matter what...

Do you guys start with NTRP self ratings, or preestablished USTA ratings? Just trying to get an idea what your 3.5 corresponds to wrt my experience.

Click to expand...

I guess self ratings... I don't think they rely on any of that strict USTA stuff. I think it's a basic estimation of the level to expect in that division. The first time I played in it, the director sort of had me "try out" just so he could be sure he wasn't signing up someone who clearly didn't belong. The thread about the tryout is still deep in the long forgotten pages of TW...I think back in 2005, the year of my second re-embracing of the game. I'm on my fourth now. Haha. Life keeps getting in the way of my sustained progress.

He certainly could end up a 4.5. I'll bet against 2015. That would mean 3 bumps up in 3 years. I havent seen someone accomplish that. I'd put the over-under on 2017...slightly ahead of his own prediction (by age 35 = 2019).

Click to expand...

There's no way id want to be a 4.5 by 2015, even if I could. I wanted to be a 4.0 in ability and rating by 2015. I wanted to be a 4.5 by 2020. My time is running out which is why im voluntarily playing up while not self rating up. I had a recent talk with my 7.0 team about this because they wanted to me to stay down because im obviously more valuable as a 3.0 than as a 3.5 or 4.0.

My theory is that I have to start now if I ever want to get there. I have the rest of my life to come down in ratings if thats what it has to be, even with the minimum changes to self rates and expired ratings.

Not everyone plays down like Cindy. Yeah, she may be a 4.0 B, but she's playing 3.5 ROFL because her record at 4.0 is terrible.

There is a usage of "bunny" here in the States that sort of combines both aspects of the term. The "bunny hill" at a ski resort is where you go if you are just learning or if you never got past the beginner stage. It also has (more so in the past) the implication that you just like to wear cute ski outfits and are not particularly there for the skiing.

Also - I think separate Singles and Doubles ratings are a good idea as I am much better in singles than dubs. I can hold my own just fine in 4.0 singles but keep wondering why there are so many people around at those rare times I play doubles - lol.

How so? Not saying I like the change, but there will be a degree more age parity, how will that raise ratings?

Click to expand...

I think the thought is that the 40+ crowd will be playing other 40+ players and it will be easier for them to win and therefore ratings will move up. I don't think this will be the case as most 40+ players are playing dubs anyways and they are in many cases tougher than the 20-30s crowd in dubs. Plus the whole reason to set this up was for the 40+ players to play in both the 18+ and 40+ leagues, which many of them are doing.

I think the thought is that the 40+ crowd will be playing other 40+ players and it will be easier for them to win and therefore ratings will move up. I don't think this will be the case as most 40+ players are playing dubs anyways and they are in many cases tougher than the 20-30s crowd in dubs. Plus the whole reason to set this up was for the 40+ players to play in both the 18+ and 40+ leagues, which many of them are doing.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Also, most women at 4.0 and below are over 40 anyway. Can't speak for the age distribution among the guys.

I think the thought is that the 40+ crowd will be playing other 40+ players and it will be easier for them to win and therefore ratings will move up. I don't think this will be the case as most 40+ players are playing dubs anyways and they are in many cases tougher than the 20-30s crowd in dubs. Plus the whole reason to set this up was for the 40+ players to play in both the 18+ and 40+ leagues, which many of them are doing.

Click to expand...

That's what I thought too. If anything, it might level things out. Most of the younger (under 40) group are either beginners or already at a higher level... the tough matches are against the grizzled veterans!

I think USTA ratings are going to be worthless soon, now that you have 40 and over leagues. People are going to have higher ratings when they are playing 40 plus leagues.

Click to expand...

The flaw in your thinking is that if some players are winning, then some are losing too. So they'd move down and so there isn't a mass move up of ratings. The system more or less stays balanced.

Perhaps what the issue is that 40+ players tend to play more doubles and are relatively better at that, so a 4.0 "singles" player would easily beat one a 4.0 "doubles" player and there is the perception the 40+ doubles guy is overrated.

I think the thought is that the 40+ crowd will be playing other 40+ players and it will be easier for them to win and therefore ratings will move up. I don't think this will be the case as most 40+ players are playing dubs anyways and they are in many cases tougher than the 20-30s crowd in dubs. Plus the whole reason to set this up was for the 40+ players to play in both the 18+ and 40+ leagues, which many of them are doing.

Click to expand...

I am in the 20-30 crowd and agree with what your saying about doubles.

The flaw in your thinking is that if some players are winning, then some are losing too. So they'd move down and so there isn't a mass move up of ratings. The system more or less stays balanced.

Perhaps what the issue is that 40+ players tend to play more doubles and are relatively better at that, so a 4.0 "singles" player would easily beat one a 4.0 "doubles" player and there is the perception the 40+ doubles guy is overrated.

I dont really care either way, but when you are only playing people in the 40+ league, it's not a true representation of all the players in the game as you are only competing against a select demographic. From what I have seen in my area all the better 40+ players are staying in the 18+ leagues as they want the extra competition. That probably further dilutes the level of tennis needed to win. As I see it people will start playing up a .5 level and will slowly increase their rating.

The flaw in your thinking is that if some players are winning, then some are losing too. So they'd move down and so there isn't a mass move up of ratings. The system more or less stays balanced.

Perhaps what the issue is that 40+ players tend to play more doubles and are relatively better at that, so a 4.0 "singles" player would easily beat one a 4.0 "doubles" player and there is the perception the 40+ doubles guy is overrated.

I dont really care either way, but when you are only playing people in the 40+ league, it's not a true representation of all the players in the game as you are only competing against a select demographic. From what I have seen in my area all the better 40+ players are staying in the 18+ leagues as they want the extra competition. That probably further dilutes the level of tennis needed to win. As I see it people will start playing up a .5 level and will slowly increase their rating.

Click to expand...

You are right that if those in the 40+ league only play in the 40+ league that you will end up lacking any connection between the leagues and you lose the ability to accurately compare their ratings. But as long as enough to play in both leagues they serve as the connection.